Talk:Cătina, Cluj

"The commune of Cătina is officially bilingual, with both Romanian and Hungarian languages being recognised officially and used in public signage, education, justice and access to public administration."

According to the Romanian Constitution, art 13 the only official language in Romania is the Romanian Language. Acc. to H.G. 1206/2001 it's pretty explicite that the only official language in Romania is the Romanian one and it is only allowed the signage in other languages but this doesn't mean that other languages are official. --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  08:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to a more appropriate one. This issue has to be clarified, however. --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  08:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Article 13 just states "In Romania, the official language is Romanian". This doesn't mean it is the exclusive official language, nor that other languages can't be recognised officially at lower levels. Additionally, the phrasing above states "with both RO and HU languages being recognised officially". This does not mean that they are explicitly defined as "official languages", but rather that both languages can be used for official purposes in these localities. "Recognised officially" means "recognised by official structures of the local government" rather than "explicitly defined as official language". I don't have a particular problem with your new phrasing, I just don't think it's as informative anymore. Ronline ✉ 08:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't mean it is the exclusive official language... On the national level, yes it does, I think. With civil law, there isn't that much room for interpretation. The Constitution means what it says. If it says Romanian is the official language, there are no other official languages lurking in the shadows. If that were the case, then Romania's legal system would be quite arbitrary; laws are designed to let citizens know what to expect, not so that someone can claim, "Aha! You didn't know about this official language!" Biruitorul 12:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In Hungary also the "official language" is Hungarian, however it doesnt mean that ethnic minorities may not use their language in public administration. In some municipalities, where the minorities form absolute majority, they can use the minority language exclusively, for example the Croatian is the only language of official use in Horvátzsidány, though the most important documents are translated and issued later in Hungarian as well. --Koppany 12:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In Romania, the situation is somewhat similar. I think there is a difference between "official language" as a precise terminology, and languages which are recognised and used by official bodies such as local authorities. These languages can be called "officially-recognised" even if they may not be explicitly defined as "official". The idea is that if a local authority uses a certain language on signage, in education, in the justice system and in all other workings of the public administration, then that language is "officially-recognised" in that locality. Ronline ✉ 13:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Is not "officially-recognised", it is accepted and it can be used in certain situations, only if used together with the Romanian Language. The Romanian language must be used and there are other languages that can be used. But not vice-versa. So there is no equal sign between them. The Constitution and laws state this very clear so there is no space for changing the words: In Romania the official language is the Romanian language. Sorry, there's nothing to say more about. --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  13:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If Hungarian is used on street signs, or by official representatives of the local government, it seems to be quite official to me. On the other hand, I am not sure that has to be emphasised in the article. I think both the versions of Ronline and Roamataa are acceptable. --KIDB 15:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Once again, it is not official. The law specify it very clear that a minority language can be used on street signs (and in some other places) but also specifies that it is not a official language, but a language accepted to be used so. There is not at least one place where it is specified it is official or suggested it would be so. --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  17:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, I think everyone agrees: only Romanian is official, but other languages (Hungarian is really what we're talking about) do possess characteristics of an official language, as in Cătina. Biruitorul 22:20, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just as a note to Roamataa: official languages can exist at various levels and do not have to be equal to each other. I'm not arguing that this is necessarily the case, but if Hungarian were declared "official" in Cătina, this would not mean mean that there would have to be an "equal sign" between them. In Ireland, for example, both Irish and English are official, but Irish is the "first official language". In Singapore, Malay, Chinese, Tamil and English are official, but Malay is also the "national language". In Spain, only Spanish is official country-wide, but Basque, Catalan and others are co-official at sub-national levels. Lastly, just because Hungarian has to be used "only together with Romanian" does not mean it is not official. This just means that, whenever Hungarian is extended recognition, Romanian must also be given the same rights. So, the only reason why we can't explicitly call Hungarian an "official language" is because it is not explicitly defined as such in law. However, I believe that calling "officially-recognised" is a different matter - this term implies that it is recognised and utilised by official levels of government. The rights accorded to Hungarian in Cătina and other similar localities imply an official recognition and usage of the Hungarian language by local authorities. Ronline ✉ 11:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, but you cannot declare the official languages of a country or place because you think so (or want it). I just proved that Romanian is the only language in Cătina, Romania and other places in Romania (see the entire thread). Can you please prove that Hungarian is official in Cătina? Please specify an official document where it says "Hungarian is the oficial language". We are not speaking about Singapore, Spain, Ireland, South Tyrol or other places. I don't know what the laws say in that places. And I also don't care. We are speking about Romania, Transylvania and Cătina. And in Romania, Transylvania and Cătina we will use the specifications and laws that exist in Romania, Transylvania and Cătina not the one existing in Singapore. I see now that some people would like Hungarian to be official in Romania. I don't mind about this. But our words means nothing if we cannot proove so. Wikipedia is about relating the reality, not about generating it. At the end of the day all what it seems, someone think, somebody guess, some people suppose, all this fails if the proves says it is not so. So, once again please, can you prove about this issue, in Romania, and not suppose anymore? R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  08:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Roamata that we need proves about the legal status of Hungarian in Romania. As I know the Hungarian-Romanian Fundamental Treaty ("alapszerződés" in Hun., I am not sure if the English name is correct) in 15§ (3) paragraph speaks about the use of Hungarian (and Romanian in Hungary) in local level: "biztosítják továbbá az anyanyelv használatát a helyi közigazgatási és bírói hatósággal való kapcsolataiban, valamint a helységnevek, utcanevek anyanyelvi formáinak használatát" that is, "the right of use of minority langauges (Hun. and Rom. respectively) is guaranteed in local public adimnistration and in contacts with juridical authorities, moreover in the use of place names and street names." The Romanian translation of this Treaty, which is part of the Hungarian and Romanian legal system, is probably available in internet. (Tratatul de bază româno-ungar) --Koppany 10:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Koppany. It is normal that the Hungarian (and the languages of the other minorities in Romania also) should be used locally and the Romanian laws agrees to that. Also with signage. But where does it say that Hungarian is a officialy language in Romania? Where does it say that? This is the core of this discussion. People should have the right to use their own language, in every country of the world (my opinion) and in Romania it is so. But the Romanian Constitution, laws and rom-hun treaty state it very clear - there is no official language in Romanian beside Romanian. If someone have any other point of view, please show the proves - official documents in Romania, laws, etc --R O ^{A M A T A A} | msg  10:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. Official language in Romania is Romanian according to the Constitution of Romania. Noone can disput it. However, I think we can accept Ronline's definition: "recognised by official structures of the local government", which of course does not mean that Hungarian is an official language in Romania. Anyway, the present state of the article is acceptable for me.--Koppany 12:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think we might be chasing the wrong lead with all this back-and-forth about "the only official language of Romania is Romanian!!" That much is clear enough and makes perfect sense. But as Koppany and others have pointed out, minority languages can be recognized at local level, not technically official but almost de facto co-official. The fact that the Hungarian names are used along with the Romanian ones in the towns' administrations is well justification enough to use the Hungarian names along with the Romanian ones on-Wiki. Whether the language is "Official" or not is almost a moot point, IMHO. K. Lásztocska 14:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cătina, Cluj. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mq2Aw0UT?url=http://www.insse.ro/cms/rw/resource/populatia_stab_1%20iulie2007.htm to http://www.insse.ro/cms/rw/resource/populatia_stab_1%20iulie2007.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)